Issues pertaining to development such as development monitoring mechanisms are very much related to development theory. For the purposes of this study, “the term development is understood as a social condition within a nation, in which the genuine needs of its population are satisfied by the rational and sustainable use of natural resources and systems,” (Reyes, 2001:1).
The development framework investigates how to describe the global change in economic system applicable to any group of countries in any period of history. According to Pieterse (2010:1), the conventional role of government to develop their countries has been overtaken by international institutions and market forces. Modernization has been assumed to be a major cause for development. However, some theorists argue that modernization is no longer an attraction.
Modernization according to Pieterse (2010:1) is no longer an appealing phenomenon and it is attributed to ecological change and technological advancement able to polarize culture and undermine cultural diversity.
Halperin (2018) contends that there are various concepts of development leading to different approaches to the subject. However, the author further argues that all approaches are concerned with the relationship between development and governance. “Development is usually seen as
41
crucially determined by structures of governance; governance is interpreted through and shaped by the goal of development,” (Halperin, 2018). This is the same way that the governments’
1hh1ha programme intends to promote by seeking to, “request for the approval of the policy framework for the one household one hectare...process flow and standard operating procedures…from the Minister (DRDLR, 2017:1).
Development theory can also be seen as an equivalent to development with national economic growth and perceives the state as the key vehicle; as a result, one of its vital concerns is to understand and explain the role of the state in development and the nature of government-market relations. It is perceived that most of the theories and models of the development originated in the West and were meant for Western societies and they were peculiar to those cultures and conditions. These development models, though western-oriented, were recommended for the countries of the Third World.
However, the government has a regulatory role to play within its development role which leads to the emergence of public interest theory. Mizutani & Nakamura (2015:3) writes that “the public interest theory presumes that regulation is established to correct different types of market failures and to improve social welfare evident in different welfare economics. Underpinning this inference, government formulate regulations with the intention of maximizing social welfare barring other social groups from interference in the regulatory process.”
Although this may be true in reality, regulations are sometimes not created to address market failures (Posner, 1974) as cited by (Mizutani & Nakamura, 2015:3). The regulatory process is interjected by interest groups such as non-government organizations, multi-national companies, trade groups and so on (Mizutani & Nakamura, 2015:3) citing (Stingler, 1971).
Under certain circumstances, Nafziger (2006:124) writes that a competitive economy promotes the public interest. In his analysis of the classical theory of economic development, the author suggests that natural order promotes economic development without government regulations.
Although this may be true, the government’s regulation may be influenced by private interest groups. According to Mizutani & Nakamura (2015:3) in private interest theory, governments get influenced by interest groups such as the first world countries to the Asian countries and ultimately developing countries and or Africa. In this instance, the interests groups indirectly control the markets through the government.
Silvestri & Veltri (2019:1-10) contend that researchers often create conceptual frameworks to test cause-and-effect relationships. The authors argue that there needs to be causality between two or more variables. The researcher will attempt to test if there is a connection between adapting to
42
climate change, policy implementation and agriculture for rural transformation (cause) and social cohesion (effect).
2.7.1 Social Cohesion
Social cohesion can be defined as an adhesive or bond that tie a society together, often through shared values, beliefs, and behaviours (SALDRU, 2018:2). Justino, et al. (2017:96) argues that social cohesion promotes “local collective action and equal representation within.” Local collective action is usually a common phenomenon in agricultural practises especially in rural communities. However, FAO (2018:4) argues that the rural population in countries of the world suffers lack of social cohesion due to limited access to land, resources, conflicts and the effects of climate change such as natural disasters. Drought, floods and landslides are known negatively impact agriculture.
Social cohesion as discussion in chapter one is the fundamental pillar of the NDP (SALDRU, 2018:1) and flagship research for the UKZN.
2.7.2 Agriculture for Rural Transformation
According to Divanbeigi & Saliola (2015:2), the evolution of the role of agriculture for development started since the 1950s. Over the past decades, the agricultural sector, in particular, has been rediscovered as a sector with great potential of triggering rural transformation, growth, providing food security, reducing poverty and inequality, and delivering environmental services.
According to (Lewis 1954: 433) cited in (Barretta, 2017:5) agriculture propels rural and industrial development, as alluded to in chapter one and two of this study.
2.7.3 1hh1ha Policy Implementation
Many Scholars give a different meaning to policy implementation. However, Mazmanian &
Sabatier (1983) cited in Signé (2017:10) loosely refers to policy implementation as “what needs to happen,” whether in intervening to address a “specific problem” or the type of practices best suited for intervening based on specific contexts. Implementation, therefore, answers the “how things will happen” question.
Public policy is a course of action chosen by the governments to tackle issues. “Public policy is the cumulative result of these choices, which can be inferred from tangible outputs, such as decisions, expenditures, programmes, and pronouncements” (Vogel & Henstra, 2015:111).
However, policy analysis is another important process to consider. Pal (2014:15) highlights that policy analysis is a process of inquiry aimed at developing and critically assessing information to
43
understand and improve public policies. However, the author concedes that there is no widely accepted policy analysis methodology. Instead, policy analysis involves deductive methods, the application of general concepts, principles, and theoretical propositions to observed phenomena, as well as inductive analysis, in which generalisations are drawn from careful observations of empirical phenomena, which are then tested against other cases (Howlett, et al., 2009:20). This dissertation is concerned with policy implementation but interrogates the implementation aspect whilst also analysing policies related to the 1hh1ha programme. Signé (2017:10:14) acknowledges that there could be policy failures which are attributed to “two primary factors that could aid to explain the successes or failures of implementing various policies namely, the degree of policy conflict and the degree of policy ambiguity”. The author points out that “the less ambiguously formulated the goals of a public policy or policy programme are, the clearer the implementation will be.”
Policy implementation and interventions do not operate in a vacuum. Instead various factors tend to be interactive. For example, Usman & Olagunju (2017:339) suggests that there is a causal relationship between the degree of the absence of cohesion and rural poverty. Theoretically, community cohesion depends on socio-economic character or disparity difference between its people (Hussein, 2017:18-29) and (Reeskens et. al.,2000) cited in (Usman & Olagunju, 2017:339;). Berdegué & Favareto, (2019) cited in (Trivelli & Berdegué, 2019:55) confirmed a clear correlation between agriculture for rural transformation and social cohesion on the one hand.
On the other hand, it was found that climate change is one of the drivers of transformation in agriculture as farmers must adapt to climate change (Trivelli & Berdegué, 2019:57-59).
Agriculture for rural transformation should be driven by policies for effective rural transformation (Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, 2020). Nyirenda-Jere, et al. (2014:15) points out that “policy implementation is usually not based on prevailing evidence, rather evidence is generated after the fact to justify a policy that has already been implemented”. This is one of the purposes of this research, to generate such evidence.
Therefore the researcher questions whether there is interactivity and ultimately possibly integration between 1hh1ha policy implementation, agriculture for rural development and trasnformation together with social cohesion. This query is depicted in the constructs of the conceptual framework in figure 2.4. The research explores whether there are any connections between these different variables.
44 Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework
Source: (Lugo-Morin, 2016:353; Justino, et al., 2017:96; Signé, 2017:10; Barretta, 2017:5) According to Tirivayi, et al. (2013:11) governmental agricultural interventions through policies serve as instruments for social cohesion. Hendrix & Brinkman (2013:12) suggests that many food security interventions have contributed to social cohesion as a result of working closely together in agricultural projects. In Africa, 70 percent of the population rely on agriculture for food supply (Martin-Shields & Stojetz, 2018:8). Agricultural transformation as a source of rural development has been elusive in practice. By studying implementation of the 1hh1ha programme, including implementation of the policies surrounding it (or lack thereof), this study should highlight perceptions from farmers and government officials that lead to improved implementation of the programme. A knowledge gap is identified in literature which queries whether there is interactivity between policy implementation, agriculture as a source of rural development and transformation along with social cohesion. These constructs are linked to the research objectives stated in section 1.4 and these same constructs formulate the conceptual framework guiding this study.